Fact Check Article: Prototype Nazi Nuclear Bombers Were Within a Few Months of Hitting New York

RandomChance

Ignoring the minuscule chance they could pull off an A Bomb, best case it’s late 1944. No way of hitting the US, slim chance of a revenge strike on London/Paris - the skies to the west are thick with allied air cover and radar unless you can somehow get one on the tip of a V2. In all likelihood, I can see a more tactical use - as ObssesedNuker says - a desperate attempt to stall the Soviets. Targeting the allies to the west might be tempting, but by ‘45, they know the Soviets are the bigger worry.
 

The Tai-Pan

Resurgam said:
It's only a short walk from my flat to the post office so it's more my annoyance they won't do their job than anything else.

They probably don't like the foreigner building a giant Nazi battleship by partworks.
Click to expand...

"One piece at a time
and it didn't cost me a dime.."
 

Riain

Geon said:
Let's make a few assumptions here.

  1. The Norsk-Hydro plant in Norway is not destroyed but heavy water production continues.
  2. Heisenberg is able to make a through breakthroughs and the nuclear program gets more financial support from the Nazis - say at the cost of some of the other wonder weapons.
  3. The Germans are able to perfect the Ju 390 v2 where it can make a probably one-way trip across the Atlantic to New York.
Now assuming the Nazis are able to manufacture one - and only one - fission device by 1944 (never mind 1945 as it would have been flat out impossible with German industry being blown to pieces by then) where would the device be best used? New York is a tempting target to be sure. But there are other places the bomb could have been used. I am wondering if Hitler might not have aimed his one atomic bolt eastward instead of westward.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

This is something I have thought about over the years. The Nazi nuke programme was scattered, poorly managed and starved of resources, so there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement. Further, if they only chose 1 development path, they wouldn't need that vast, vast, VAST resources expended on the Manhattan project. However I think the success of the Manhattan project to deploy a pair of weapons by August 1945 was because of the scale of the project. No streamlined, shoestring project would deploy a bomb any sooner even if it did everything right.

For example iiuc Little Mans HEU is considered to be like 90% enriched, but that's actually an average of 3 HEU components enriched by 3 different methods, some were like 85% enriched while others were 95%. I f the smaller but more efficient Nazi programme doesn't use 3 methods simultaneously how long will it take to enrich enough uranium and how enriched will it be? I can't imagine it would deliver more HEU at high concentrations sooner than the Manhattan project.
 

Geon

Donor
Riain said:
This is something I have thought about over the years. The Nazi nuke programme was scattered, poorly managed and starved of resources, so there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement. Further, if they only chose 1 development path, they wouldn't need that vast, vast, VAST resources expended on the Manhattan project. However I think the success of the Manhattan project to deploy a pair of weapons by August 1945 was because of the scale of the project. No streamlined, shoestring project would deploy a bomb any sooner even if it did everything right.

For example iiuc Little Mans HEU is considered to be like 90% enriched, but that's actually an average of 3 HEU components enriched by 3 different methods, some were like 85% enriched while others were 95%. I f the smaller but more efficient Nazi programme doesn't use 3 methods simultaneously how long will it take to enrich enough uranium and how enriched will it be? I can't imagine it would deliver more HEU at high concentrations sooner than the Manhattan project.
Click to expand...
What you have said here makes me wonder. If as I indicated above the British and the Norwegians hadn't blown up Norsk Hydro the Nazis would have still had an ongoing supply of heavy water. Assume, Heisenberg or someone does a better selling job with Hitler a lot earlier say in '38 or '39 then are we looking at a possible Nazi atomic bomb by '44? I'm thinking that Germany might manage one bomb not two. And I shudder to think what someone like Hitler would do with it. I would still be interested in knowing from others here where Hitler might have decided such a weapon would best be used and how it might affect the war's outcome.
 
alfredtuomi

alfredtuomi

assuming Nazi's could have built a bomb the size of little boy the Ju 390 would have run out of fuel before reaching New York and even a recon flight would have been a one way trip.......prob one reason for cancelling the project.
 

Alex1guy

Notsure said:
I've read the Japanese where actually ahead of the Germans on the theory behind the bomb. They also had access to heavy water in Korea.
Click to expand...

I've read this too, though they lacked the industry to pursue a real program. My understanding is their mathematics were more correct than the germans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top